molecular taxonomy of endemic coastal ligia isopods from ...molecular taxonomy of endemic coastal...
TRANSCRIPT
Submitted 7 December 2018Accepted 22 July 2019Published 15 August 2019
Corresponding authorCarlos A. Santamaria,[email protected],[email protected]
Academic editorRita Castilho
Additional Information andDeclarations can be found onpage 25
DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531
Copyright2019 Santamaria
Distributed underCreative Commons CC-BY 4.0
OPEN ACCESS
Molecular taxonomy of endemic coastalLigia isopods from the Hawaiian Islands:re-description of L. hawaiensis anddescription of seven novel cryptic speciesCarlos A. SantamariaBiology Faculty, College of Science and Mathematics, University of South Florida, Sarasota, FL, United Statesof AmericaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, United States of America
ABSTRACTPast phylogeographic work has shown Ligia hawaiensis, a coastal isopod speciesendemic to the Hawaiian Islands, to be a paraphyletic complex of several highlygenetically divergent yet morphologically cryptic lineages. Despite the need for ataxonomic revision of this species, the lack of morphological differentiation hasproven an impediment to formally describe new Ligia species in the region. Molecularcharacters and species delimitation approaches have been successfully used to formallydescribe cryptic species in other crustacean taxa, suggesting they may aid taxonomicrevisions of L. hawaiensis. Herein, various distance- and tree-based molecular speciesdelimitation approaches are applied on a concatenated dataset comprised of bothmitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences of L. hawaiensis and L. perkinsi, a terrestrialspecies endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago. Results of these analyses informed ataxonomic revision leading to the redescription of L. hawaiensis and the descriptionof seven new cryptic species on the basis of molecular characters: L. dante, L. eleluensis,L. honu, L. kamehameha, L. mauinuiensis, L. pele, and L. rolliensis. These coastal Ligiaspecies from the Hawaiian archipelago appear to be largely limited to single islands,where they appear largely constrained to volcanic rift zones suggesting allopatric eventsat local scales may drive diversification for poorly dispersing organisms in the Hawaiiancoastlines. Additional work remains needed to fully assess the role of said events;however, the description of these novel species underscore their potential to aid instudies of local diversification of marine organisms in Hawai‘i. Lastly, this representsthe first application of molecular taxonomic approaches to formally describe geneticlineages found in Ligia isopods as species, underscoring the promise thesemethods holdto taxonomic revisions in other species in the genus shown to harbor cryptic geneticlineages.
Subjects Marine Biology, Taxonomy, ZoologyKeywords Oniscidea, Intertidal, Species description, Ligiidae, Pacific biodiversity, Cryptic species
INTRODUCTIONThe isopod genus Ligia (Fabricius 1798) consists of ∼40 currently valid species, mostof which inhabit rocky intertidal habitats (Schmalfuss, 2003). The genus is known to
How to cite this article Santamaria CA. 2019. Molecular taxonomy of endemic coastal Ligia isopods from the Hawaiian Islands: re-description of L. hawaiensis and description of seven novel cryptic species. PeerJ 7:e7531 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7531
exhibit several biological traits that severely limit their dispersal potential: Ligia isopodsare direct developers who carry their embryos in a brood pouch (i.e., marsupium) untiltheir emergence as fully formed juveniles, have poor desiccation resistance (Barnes, 1934;Barnes, 1935; Tsai, Dai & Chen, 1998), avoid open water (Barnes, 1932), and exhibit poorlocomotion outside their rocky habitats (Santamaria personal observation). Such lowvagility and the patchiness of Ligia habitats (i.e., rocky intertidal coastlines) have beensuggested to restrict gene flow, leading to long-term isolation and deep genetic divergencebetween populations even across small geographic distances (e.g., Jung et al., 2008;Hurtado,Mateos & Santamaria, 2010; Eberl et al., 2013; Santamaria et al., 2013). Not surprisingly,molecular characterizations have uncovered highly divergent genetic lineages in severalLigia species around the world suggesting that some species may represent cryptic speciescomplexes in need of formal taxonomic description (Jung et al., 2008; Hurtado, Mateos& Santamaria, 2010; Santamaria et al., 2013; Raupach et al., 2014; Santamaria, Mateos &Hurtado, 2014; Santamaria et al., 2017; Greenan, Griffiths & Santamaria, 2018; Hurtado etal., 2018). One such example is that of Ligia from the coastlines of theHawaiian archipelago.
Two coastal species have been described from the Hawaiian islands to date: L. hawaiensis(Dana, 1853) and L. kauaiensis (Edmondson, 1931). The former was first described byDana(1853) from specimens collected in Kaua‘i and O‘ahu and later confirmed as a valid speciesby Jackson (1922). It is currently thought to occur solely in the Hawaiian archipelago whereit is widespread (Taiti & Ferrara, 1991; Taiti & Howarth, 1996; Schmalfuss, 2003). Ligiakauaiensis was described by Edmondson (1931) from individuals collected from KalihiwaiBay, Kaua‘i. He differentiated L. kauaiensis from L. hawaiensis based on differences ininter-eye distance, number of segments in the flagellum of the antenna, and body size;however, posterior authors did not find such differences and suggested L. kauaiensis to be ajunior synonym of L. hawaiensis (Arcangeli, 1954). The current taxonomy of the Ligia genusreflects this synonymy, recognizing L. hawaiensis as the sole coastal Ligia species endemicto the Hawaiian archipelago (Schmalfuss, 2003). Recent molecular analyses of coastal Ligiafrom the region; however, suggest L. hawaiensis may be a cryptic species complex in needof taxonomic revision.
Phylogeographic studies completed in the past two decades suggest L. hawaiensis to be aparaphyletic taxon composed of several deeply divergent and cryptic lineages (Taiti et al.,2003; Santamaria et al., 2013). Maximum Parsimony phylogenetic reconstructions carriedout in 2003 and based on a mitochondrial dataset including L. hawaiensis and L. perkinsi, aterrestrial species from the Hawaiian archipelago, from Kaua‘i and O‘ahu uncovered threedivergent lineages within L. hawaiensis (Taiti et al., 2003). A decade later, Santamaria et al.(2013) expanded on this work by including samples from previously unsampled islands,using additional genetic markers, and applying model-based phylogenetic reconstructionapproaches. They found L. hawaiensis to be a paraphyletic taxon composed of several highlydivergent and geographically disjunct lineages, including a clade comprised of coastal Ligiafrom Maui and Hawai‘i (Clade A), another comprised of Kaua‘i individuals (Clade D),one containing Ligia from O‘ahu and the Maui-Nui complex (Clade E), and lastly onecomprised of individuals from the islands of O‘ahu, Maui, and Hawai‘i (Clade F). Giventhe paraphyly of L. hawaiensis and that levels of divergence between said lineages matched
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 2/31
or exceeded those observed between other Ligia species pairs, Santamaria et al. (2013)concluded L. hawaiensis may represent a cryptic species complex in need of taxonomicrevision. Unfortunately, such taxonomic revisions have been hindered by an apparent lackof morphological differentiation amongst highly divergent genetic lineages.
Taiti et al. (2003) evaluated eight characters used in Ligia taxonomy for both male andfemale L. hawaiensis of what are now known to be three highly divergent lineages (i.e.,D, E,F) and failed to find any differences between them.More recently, geometric-morphometriccomparisons capturing characters used in Ligia taxonomy (e.g., inter-eye distance, shapeof telson) were carried out by Santamaria et al. (2013) to determine whether statisticallysignificant shape differences amongst genetic lineages existed. Although their analyses didrecover statistically significant differences amongst lineages, cross-validated discriminantfunction analyses indicated these to be of no taxonomic value as correct classificationrates were as low as 26.67%. Similar results have been since reported for other Ligiaspecies. High degrees of overlap in overall body shapes and low classification rates havealso been reported for L. occidentalis lineages (Santamaria et al., 2016), while taxonomicexamination of highly divergent L. natalensis lineages uncovered by Greenan, Griffiths &Santamaria (2018) failed to uncover taxonomically diagnostic characters amongst in thelineages found in this southern African species (C.L. Griffiths personal communication).Hence, the totality of these findings indicates molecular approaches may be the best-suitedapproach to formally describe coastal Ligia lineages from the Hawaiian archipelago asspecies.
Molecular-based species approaches have been successfully used in detecting,delineating, and describing cryptic species in other peracarids such as Gammarusamphipods (Grabowski, Wysocka & Mamos, 2017), munnopsid isopods (Schnurr et al.,2018), and Atlantoscia isopods (Zimmermann et al., 2018). In this study, phylogeneticreconstructions as well as distance- and phylogeny-based molecular species delimitationmethods are applied on a multi-locus dataset comprised of L. hawaiensis and L. perkinsiindividuals collected throughout the Hawaiian archipelago to inform the revision ofthe taxonomy of L. hawaiensis. Results reported herein indicate the need to narrowlyre-describe L. hawaiensis and to describe seven new species distinguished on the basisof molecular characters. The formal description of these cryptic species not only furtherhighlights Ligia as a rare example of in-situ speciation in a Hawaiianmarine taxon bird (Kay& Palumbi, 1987, but see Bird et al., 2011), but may also be of importance to conservationefforts (Bickford et al., 2007; Delić et al., 2017).
MATERIALS AND METHODSSample collectionLigia specimens were collected from 24 rocky intertidal habitats across the Hawaiian islandsof Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, Maui, and Hawai‘i in the summer of 2016. Of these, nine are localitiespreviously sampled by Santamaria et al. (2013) with the remaining fifteen being localitiespreviously not characterized by either Santamaria et al. (2013) or Taiti et al. (2003). Detaillocality information is provided in Table 1. All individuals were caught by hand during
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 3/31
Table 1 Localities included in the study, with corresponding number of individuals sampled, GenBank accession numbers, and geographic information.
Loc.Label
Localityname
NewLoc.
# inds.(New)
COIAcc. No
16S rDNAAcc, No.
12S rDNA.Acc. No.
CytbAcc. No.
28S rDNAAcc. No.
NaKAcc. No.
H3AAcc. No.
Latitude Longitude
A1 Wai‘OpaeMaui
NO 2(1) MK034488 MK032502KF546549
MK032601KF546573
MK034572KF546718
N/A N/A MK034658 20◦37′29.20′′N 156◦12′34.10′′W
A2 Kealakukea BayHawai‘i
NO 6(5) MK034474MK034475MK034476MK034477KF546627
MK032515MK032516MK032517MK032518MK032519
MK032608MK032609KF546574
MK940873MK940874
KF546594 MK034663 19◦28′32.88′′N 155◦55′11.04′′W
A3 Pu’unalu Beach ParkHawai‘i
NO 5(4) MK034513MK034514KF546628
MK032564MK032565MK032566MK032567KF546551
MK032627MK032628KF546576
MK034582MK034583KF546716
MK940887KF546701
KF546593 MK034677 19◦08′00.60′′N 155◦30′18.30′′W
A4 Isaac Hale Beach ParkHawai‘i
NO 6(5) N/A MK032568MK032569MK032570MK032571MK032572KF546550
MK032629MK032630KF546575
MK034584MK034585KF546717
MK940888KF546702
MK034645MK034646KF546586
MK034678MK034679
19◦27′26.82′′N 154◦50′31.68′′W
A5 Miloli Beach ParkHawai‘i
YES 5(5) MK034478MK034479MK034480MK034481MK034482
MK032554MK032555MK032556MK032557MK032558
MK032623MK032624
MK034567MK034568MK034569
MK940885MK940886
MK034642MK034643
MK034675 19◦10′58.10′′N 155◦54′25.10′′W
A6 Waianapanapa State ParkMaui
YES 5(5) N/A MK032492MK032493MK032494MK032495MK032496
MK032596MK032597
MK034570MK034571
MK940866 MK034605 MK034654MK034655
20◦47′21.80′′N 156◦00′07.90′′W
A7 Koki Beach ParkMaui
YES 5(5) MK034483MK034484MK034485MK034486MK034487
MK032497MK032498MK032499MK032500MK032501
MK032598MK032599MK032600
MK940867 MK034606MK034607MK034608MK034609MK034610
MK034656MK034657
20◦43′41.62′′N 155◦59′06.71′′W
B1 Nu’uanu PaliO‘ahu
NO 1(0) KF546661 KF546548 KF546572 KF546719 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
C1 Mt KahiliKaua‘i
NO 1(0) KF546660 KF546546 KF546578 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
C2 Makaleha MtsKaua‘i
NO 1(0) KF546659 KF546545 KF546577 KF546723 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
C3 Haupu RangeKaua‘i
NO 1(0) KF546655 KF546547 KF546579 KF546722 KF546683 KF546592 N/A N/A N/A
(continued on next page)
Santamaria
(2019),PeerJ,DO
I10.7717/peerj.75314/31
Table 1 (continued)Loc.Label
Localityname
NewLoc.
# inds.(New)
COIAcc. No
16S rDNAAcc, No.
12S rDNA.Acc. No.
CytbAcc. No.
28S rDNAAcc. No.
NaKAcc. No.
H3AAcc. No.
Latitude Longitude
D1 Kalihiwai BeachKaua‘i
NO 14(5) MK034540MK034541MK034542MK034543MK034544KF546598KF546599KF546600KF546601KF546602KF546603KF546604KF546605KF546606
MK032544MK032545MK032546MK032547MK032548KF546544
MK032619MK032620KF546571
MK034593MK034594KF546721
MK940882MK940883KF546686KF546687KF546688KF546689KF546690
MK034635MK034636MK034637MK034638MK034639KF546585
MK034672MK034673
22◦13′05.30′′N 159◦25′31.15′′W
D2 Kauapea BeachKaua‘i
NO 1(0) KF546656 KF546543 KF546570 KF546720 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
D6 Hoai BayKaua‘i
YES 5(5) MK034545MK034546MK034547MK034548MK034549
MK032549MK032550MK032551MK032552MK032553
MK032621MK032622
MK034595MK034596
MK940884 MK034640MK034641
MK034674 21◦52′51.93′′N 159◦28′25.01′′W
E2 Papohaku Beach ParkMoloka‘i
NO 1(0) KF546607 KF546542 KF546569 KF546715 N/A N/A N/A 21◦10′46.56′′N 157◦15′5.88′′W
E3 North of Puko’oLana‘i
NO 9(0) KF546608KF546609KF546610KF546611KF546612KF546613KF546614KF546615KF546616
KF546540 KF546565 KF546713 KF546696KF546697KF546698KF546700
KF546587 N/A 21◦06′06.84′′N 156◦45′06.66′′W
E4 Manele BayMoloka‘i
NO 7(0) KF546643KF546644KF546645KF546646KF546647KF546648KF546649
KF546538 KF546564 N/A KF546677KF546678KF546679KF546680KF546681KF546682
KF546589 N/A 20◦44′37.37′′N 156◦53′12.47′′W
E5 Poelua BayMaui
NO 1(0) KF546657 KF546532 KF546566 KF546710 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
E6 SpreckelsvilleMaui
NO 8(0) KF546595KF546596KF546597KF546650KF546651KF546652KF546653KF546654
KF546539 KF546567 KF546712 KF546691KF546692KF546693KF546694KF546695
KF546590 N/A 20◦54′31.38′′N 156◦24′40.26′′W
(continued on next page)
Santamaria
(2019),PeerJ,DO
I10.7717/peerj.75315/31
Table 1 (continued)Loc.Label
Localityname
NewLoc.
# inds.(New)
COIAcc. No
16S rDNAAcc, No.
12S rDNA.Acc. No.
CytbAcc. No.
28S rDNAAcc. No.
NaKAcc. No.
H3AAcc. No.
Latitude Longitude
E7 KeanaeMaui
NO 6(5) KF546658 MK032487MK032488MK032489MK032490MK032491KF546537
MK032594MK032595KF546568
MK034597MK034598KF546714
MK940865 N/A MK034652MK034653
N/A N/A
E8 DT Fleming Beach ParkMaui
YES 2(2) MK034550MK034551
MK032503MK032504
MK032602MK032603
MK034599MK034600
MK940868MK940869
MK034611MK034612
MK034659MK034660
21◦00′20.82′′N 156◦38′58.43′′W
E9 Hanakao’o ParkMaui
YES 5(5) MK034552MK034553MK034554MK034555MK034556
MK032505MK032506MK032507MK032508MK032509
MK032604MK032605
MK034601MK034602
MK940870MK940871
MK034613MK034614MK034615MK034616
N/A 20◦54′34.10′′N 156◦41′19.03′′W
E10 Wawamalu Beach ParkO‘ahu
YES 5(5) MK034557MK034558MK034559MK034560MK034561
MK032535MK032536MK032537MK032538MK032534
MK032616MK032617
MK034603MK034604
MK940879 MK034628MK034629MK034630MK034631MK034632
MK034669 21◦17′12.51′′N 157◦40′07.66′′W
F1 PupukeaO‘ahu
NO 16(5) MK034494MK034495MK034496MK034497KF546617KF546618KF546619KF546620KF546621KF546622KF546623KF546624KF546625KF546626
MK032520MK032521MK032522MK032523KF546533KF546531
MK032610MK032611KF546562
MK034575 MK034591KF546709
KF546667KF546668KF546669KF546670KF546671
MK034621MK034622MK034623KF546591
MK034664MK034665
21◦38′59.70′′N 158◦03′45.48′′W
F2 Pouhala MarshO‘ahu
NO 1(0) N/A KF546532 N/A KF546710 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F3 Honomanu BayMaui
NO 1(0) N/A KF546530 KF546563 KF546708 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F4 Keokea BeachHawai‘i
NO 1(0) N/A KF546529 KF546558 KF546703 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F5 Onekahakaha Beach ParkHawai‘i
NO 19(5) MK034520MK034521MK034522MK034523MK034524KF546629KF546630KF546631KF546632KF546633KF546634KF546635KF546636KF546637KF546638KF546639KF546640KF546641KF546642
MK032573MK032574MK032575MK032576KF546534
MK032631MK032632KF546561
MK034588KF546705
KF546672KF546673KF546674KF546675KF546676
KF546588 MK034680MK034681
19◦44′16.05′′N 155◦02′20.15′′W
(continued on next page)
Santamaria
(2019),PeerJ,DO
I10.7717/peerj.75316/31
Table 1 (continued)Loc.Label
Localityname
NewLoc.
# inds.(New)
COIAcc. No
16S rDNAAcc, No.
12S rDNA.Acc. No.
CytbAcc. No.
28S rDNAAcc. No.
NaKAcc. No.
H3AAcc. No.
Latitude Longitude
F6 Leleiwi BeachHawai‘i
NO 1(0) KF546535 KF546560 KF546706 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F7 South PointHawai‘i
NO 6(5) MK034515MK034516MK034517MK034518MK034519
MK032559MK032560MK032561MK032562MK032563KF546536
MK032625MK032626KF546559
MK034586MK034587KF546707
N/A MK034644 MK034676
F8 Kapa’a State ParkHawai‘i
NO 1(0) KF546528 KF546557 KF546704 N/A N/A N/A 20◦12′11.52′′N 155◦54′6.66′′W
F9 Kolekole Beach ParkHawai‘i
YES 5(5) MK034525MK034526MK034527MK034528MK034529
MK032577MK032578MK032579MK032580MK032581
MK032633MK032634
MK034589MK034590
MK940891MK940892
MK034647 N/A 19◦52′58.80′′N 155◦07′07.60′′W
F10 Laupahoehoe Beach ParkHawai‘i
YES 5(5) MK034530MK034531MK034532MK034533MK034534
MK032582MK032583MK032584
MK032635MK032636
MK034591 MK940893MK940894MK940895MK940896
MK034648 MK034682MK034683
19◦59′36.60′′N 155◦14′24.01′′W
F11 Spencer Beach ParkHawai‘i
YES 5(5) MK034535MK034536MK034537MK034538MK034539
MK032585MK032586MK032587MK032588MK032589
MK032637MK032638
MK034592 N/A MK034649MK034650MK034651
MK034684MK034685
20◦01′22.41′′N 155◦49′21.50′′W
F12 Baby BeachMaui
YES 7(7) MK034562MK034563MK034564MK034565MK034566
MK032482MK032483MK032484MK032485MK032486
MK032592MK032593
N/A MK940864 N/A N/A 20◦54′45.09′′N 156◦24′16.01′′W
F13 KahaluuO‘ahu
YES 5(5) MK034489MK034490MK034491MK034492MK034493
MK032510MK032511MK032512MK032513MK032514
MK032606MK032607
MK034573MK034574
MK940872 MK034617MK034618MK034619MK034620
MK034661MK034662
21◦28′17.81′′N 157◦50′40.65′′W
F14 Kaena Point (North)O‘ahu
YES 5(5) MK034498MK034499MK034500MK034501MK034502
MK032524MK032525MK032526MK032527MK032528
MK032612MK032613
MK034576MK034577
MK940875MK940876
MK034624MK034625
MK034666MK034667
21◦34′47.46′′N 158◦14′15.43′′W
F15 Kaiaka Bay Beach ParkO‘ahu
YES 5(5) MK034503MK034504MK034505MK034506MK034507
MK032529MK032530MK032531MK032532MK032533
MK032614MK032615
MK034578MK034579
MK940877MK940878
MK034626MK034627
MK034668 21◦35′20.62′′N 158◦07′03.42′′W
F16 Kaena Point (South)O‘ahu
YES 5(5) MK034508MK034509MK034510MK034511MK034512
MK032590MK032539MK032540MK032541MK032542MK032543
MK032618 MK034580MK034581
MK940880MK940881
MK034633MK034634
MK034670MK034671
21◦33′21.21′′N 158◦14′54.88′′W
Santamaria
(2019),PeerJ,DO
I10.7717/peerj.75317/31
the day and field-preserved in 70% ethanol. Once in the laboratory, all specimens wereidentified as L. hawaiensis by comparing the endopod of the 2nd pleopod to themorphologyillustrated by Taiti et al. (2003) prior to molecular characterizations.
Molecular laboratory methodsTotal genomic DNA was extracted from pereopods and/or pleopods using the Quickg-DNA MiniPrep Kit (Zymo Research) for 1–5 individuals per locality. Afterwards, fourmitochondrial and three nuclear gene fragments were amplified using previously publishedprimers and conditions: (a) a 658-bp segment of the Cytochrome Oxidase I gene (hereafterCOI, primers LCO1490/HCO2198; Folmer et al., 1994), (b) a ∼490-bp segment of the 16SrRNA gene (primers 16Sar/16Sbr; Palumbi, 1996), (c) a∼495-bp segment of the 12S rDNAgene (primers crust-12Sf/crust-12Sr; Podsiadlowski & Bartolomaeus, 2005), (d) a 361-bpfragment of the Cytochrome-b gene (hereafter Cytb, primers 144F/151F and 270R/272R;Merritt et al., 1998), (e) a ∼1,000-bp segment of the 28S rDNA gene (primers 28SA/28SBWhiting, 2002) (f) 664-bp region of the alpha-subunit of the Sodium Potassium ATPase(hereafter NaK, primers NaK-forb/NaK-rev2; Tsang et al., 2008), and (g) a ∼328-bpfragment of the Histone H3 gene (primers H3AF/H3AR; Colgan et al., 1998).
Genomic DNA was also obtained for the syntype of L. hawaiensis deposited in theHarvard Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ CRU-1543) using a modified versionof the protocol of Shokralla, Singer & Hajibabaei (2010): one mL of the specimen’spreservative ethanol was evaporated at 56 ◦C for 30 min, reconstituted in 250 µL ofmolecular water, with DNA then extracted using the Quick g-DNA MiniPrep Kit (ZymoResearch). Twomitochondrial genes fragments were PCR amplified for this specimen usinginternal primers designed in Geneious R8.1.9 based on publicly available Ligia sequences:a 122-bp fragment of the 16S rDNA gene (16S-LigiaF: 5′-CGCAGTATCCTGACTGTGCT-3′, 16S-LigiaR: 5′-AGCTTTTAGGGTCTTATCGTCCC-3′) and a 212-bp fragment ofthe COI gene (COI-LigiaF 5′-CTWGGDCAGCCTGGWAGRTTT-3′; COI-LigiaR 5′-MCCTGTTCCTACTCCTCTTTCA-3′). All PCR products were visualized on a 1% agarosegel stained using SYBR-Safe (Invitrogen) prior to sequencing at the University of ArizonaGenetics Core (UAGC).
Sequence alignment and model testingSequences produced in this study, with the exception of those for the L. hawaiensis syntype,were combinedwith those produced by Santamaria et al. (2013) and those publicly availablein GenBank. The syntype sequences were excluded from the dataset due to their relativeshort length. Ribosomal genes (16S rDNA, 12S rDNA) were aligned using the MAFFTalgorithm (Katoh & Standley, 2013) as implemented in the GUIDANCE2 server (Sela et al.,2015) using standard settings. Poorly aligned positions in these alignments were removedautomatically by masking all positions with a confidence alignment score below 1.00.Protein coding genes were aligned using the online MAFFT server (Katoh, Rozewicki &Yamada, 2017) using default settings. No evidence suggestive of pseudo-genes was observedin any of the protein coding genes alignments. Pairwise genetic distances were estimatedwith the Kimura-2-Parameter (K2P) correction (excluding ambiguous sites) in MEGAv7.0.18 for the COI dataset (Kumar, Stecher & Tamura, 2016).
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 8/31
For each aligned gene dataset, the most appropriate model of nucleotide evolutionwas selected from 1,624 models by evaluating their likelihoods on a fixed BioNJ-JC treeunder the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) in jModeltest v2.1 (Darriba et al., 2012).Afterwards, individual gene alignments were concatenated using SequenceMatrix v.1.7.8.1(Vaidya, Lohman & Meier, 2011) and the most appropriate model of nucleotide evolutionselected for the concatenated alignment as described above.
Molecular species delimitation analysesSpecies hypothesis were obtained using several molecular species delimitation analyses(hereafter MSDAs) approaches, including both tree and distance based approaches. Twotree-based MSDA approaches were implemented: the Poisson Tree Processes model usedin the PTP server ( http://species.h-its.org/), an approach that delineates species based onbranching patterns (Zhang et al., 2013), and the General Mixed Yule Coalescent model(hereafter GMYC; Fujisawa & Barraclough, 2013), an approach that uses branch lengths todetermine the transition from intraspecific to interspecific relationships.
As PTP analyses require phylogenetic trees as input, phylogenetic searches on theconcatenated alignment of all six genes were carried out under Maximum Likelihoodinference as implemented in RAxML v8.0.0 (Stamatakis, 2014). Searches were repeatedfor three partitioning approaches: unpartitioned, by gene, and as determined by the BICimplemented in PartitionFinder v1.0.0 (Lanfear et al., 2012) using settings as Santamaria etal. (2013). RAxML searches consisted of 1,000 bootstrap replicates followed by a thoroughML search under the GTR + 0 model run under the Thorough Bootstrap Algorithmwith all other settings as default. Majority-rule consensus trees were estimated for eachanalysis using the SumTrees command of DendroPy v3.10.1 (Sukumaran & Holder, 2010).PTP analyses were then carried under both the Maximum Likelihood and Bayesianimplementations on both the ML tree and majority consensus bootstrap tree produced byeach search. Settings used were as follows: 500,000 MCMC iterations; a burn-in of 0.10;and a thinning value of 100.
In contrast with PTP, GMYC delineations require ultrametric trees as input. Thus,BEAST v2.1.3 (Bouckaert et al., 2014) was used to estimate ultrametric trees for theunpartitioned concatenated mitochondrial dataset using two different approaches:assuming a constant rate of evolution and speciation assuming a Yule process (i.e., constantspeciation rate; Yule, 1925; Gernhard, 2008), and under a coalescent model of speciationassuming a constant population size (Kingman, 1982). Both searches were used using themost appropriate model of nucleotide evolution. All BEAST runs were carried out for 50million generationswith sampling every 1,000th. Resulting trees were summarized using theSumTrees command with burn-in discarded and with edges set as per the mean-age option.Resulting ultrametric trees were analyzed using the GMYC approach as implemented bythe ‘splits’ package (http://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/splits/) in R using default settings.
Two distance-based approaches were applied on the COI gene dataset alone: the ABGDsoftware (Puillandre et al., 2012) and the BIN system applied in BOLD v3 (Ratnasingham& Hebert, 2013). ABGD analyses were carried out on the entire COI dataset and
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 9/31
after masking ambiguous sites using the online server (http://wwwabi.snv.jussieu.fr/public/abgd/abgdweb.html) under the Kimura 2-Parameter (K2P) nucleotide evolution model, aPmin value of 0.01, Pmax of 0.20, and a relative width of 1. All other settings were as default.BIN searches in BOLD were carried out using the ‘‘Cluster Sequences’’ option under theK2P distance model and the BOLD aligner option. Sequences shorter than 200-bp, withevidence of contaminants, possibly misidentified, and with stop codons were filtered out.All other parameters were as default.
Candidate species were then identified by comparing results of phylogeneticreconstructions, pairwise COI K2P distances, and MSDAs patterns. In general terms,candidate species were chosen so that all the following criteria were met: (1) all members ofthe putative species constituted a well-supported (BS >90%) monophyletic clade recoveredin all phylogenetic reconstructions; (2) within-group average pairwise COI K2P distancesin the clade were <3.0%; and (3) a majority of MSDAs assigned individuals as belongingto the same candidate species. Exceptions to the third criterion were made for thoseinstances where analyses identified several species consisting of a single individual within awell-supported monophyletic group identified as a single species by other analyses. Thesecriteria were chosen to avoid over-splitting.
Candidate species were validated using BPP v4.0 (Yang, 2015) by completing speciesdelimitations under two different partition schemes (i.e., unpartitioned, by gene) andseveral combinations of θ and τ priors. Diagnostic nucleotide positions were thendetermined for the validated candidate species using the ‘‘Diagnostic character’’ functionof BOLD. Analyses were carried out on all genes independently assuming a K2P distancemodel, all quality filters, grouping of sequences according to species, and alignments assubmitted. All other settings were as default. Diagnostic and partially diagnostic charactersfor each species were recorded, with others ignored.
Lastly, the identity of the name-carrying L. hawaiensis syntype deposited in the HarvardMuseum of Comparative Zoology was established using three approaches. First, theCOI sequence obtained from this specimen was queried against all barcode recordsavailable in the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD) in May of 2019 (Ratnasingham & Hebert,2007). Second, the 16S rDNA and COI sequences were each queried against all publishedsequences in GenBank using BLAST in May 2019. Lastly, 16S rDNA and COI sequenceswere combined with the corresponding gene dataset produced in this study, and alignedas described above. Neighbor-joining trees were produced for each aligned gene datasetusing Geneious R8.1.9.
The electronic version of this article in Portable Document Format (PDF) will representa published work according to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature(ICZN), and hence the new names contained in the electronic version are effectivelypublished under that Code from the electronic edition alone. This published workand the nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank, the onlineregistration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) can beresolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser byappending the LSID to the prefix http://zoobank.org/. The LSID for this publicationis: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7FF280B9-13B0-43F9-A9D6-1C2CDF29C0CC. The online
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 10/31
D1 D2
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
C1C2
C3 F1
F2
F3
F4
F5F6
F7
F8
E2
E3
E4
E5E6
E7
Kaua’i
Ni’ihauO’ahu
Moloka’i
Lana’i
Kaho’olawe
Maui
Hawai’i
A5
F9F10
F11
D6
A6A7
E8
E9
F12
F14
F16
F15F13
E10
Figure 1 Ligia localities included in this study. Labels and colors correspond with other figures andtables in this study and that of Santamaria et al. (2013). Detailed information for each locality is presentedin Table 1. Localities of the suppralittoral L. hawaiensis included: Kaua‘i: D1-Kalihiwai Beach, D2-Kauapea Beach, D6-Hoai Bay (D6); O‘ahu: E10-Wawamalu Beach Park, F1-Pupukea, F2-Pouhala Marsh,F13-Kahaluu (F13), F14-Kaena Point (North), F15-Kaiaka Bay Beach Park, F16-Kaena Point (South);Moloka‘i: E2-Papohaku Beach Park, E4-Manele Bay; Lana‘i: E3-North of Puko’o; Maui: A1-Wai‘Opae;A6-Waianapanapa State Park, A7-Koki Beach Park,E5-Poelua Bay, E6-Spreckelsville, E7-Keanae, E8-DTFleming Beach Park, E9-Hanakao’o Park, F3-Honomanu Bay, F12-Baby Beach Spreckelsville Area;Hawai‘i: A2-Kealakukea Bay, A3-Pu’unalu Beach Park, A4-Isaac Hale Beach Park, A5-Miloli Beach Park,F4-Keokea Beach, F5-Onekahakaha Beach Park, F6-Leleiwi Beach, F7-South Point, F8-Kapa’a StatePark, F9-Kolekole Beach Park, F10-Laupahoehoe Beach Park, F11-Spencer Beach Park. Localities of theterrestrial L. perkinsi included are Kaua‘i: C1-Mt Kahili, C2-Makaleha Mts, C3-Haupu Range; O‘ahu:B1-Nu’uanu Pali. Boldfaced labels indicate type localities.
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7531/fig-1
version of this work is archived and available from the following digital repositories: PeerJ,PubMed Central and CLOCKSS.
RESULTSThe combination of molecular data produced in this study with that previously publishedby Santamaria et al. (2013) produced a concatenated dataset 3,889-bp long after to theremoval of poorly aligned positions in the 16S, 12S, and 28S rDNA genes (43, 17, and 49respectively). This alignment included four mitochondrial and three nuclear genes from193 individuals across 39 localities in the Hawaiian archipelago (Fig. 1, Table 1). The finalalignment included 543 parsimony informative sites (COI= 185; Cyt-b: 120; 12S rDNA=99; 16S rDNA= 91; 28S rDNA= 39;NaK= 6;H3A= 3). All new sequences produced in thisstudy have been deposited in GenBank under accession numbers MK032482–MK032590,MK032592–MK032638, MK034474–MK034685, MK940864–MK940896 (Table 1) whilean annotated alignment is provided as Dataset S1. The sequences produced in this studyare also deposited in the BOLD database.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 11/31
All phylogenetic reconstructions completed in this study were congruent and matchthose reported by Santamaria et al. (2013). Four highly divergent lineages comprised ofcoastal Ligia were identified: (a) Clade A (lavenders and purples in all figures) whichcontained all individuals from three localities in Maui (A1, 6–7) and Hawai‘i (A2–5) each;(b) Clade D (green in all figures) which included all coastal Ligia sampled from Kaua‘i(D1–2, 6); (c) Clade E (oranges and yellows in all figures) from O‘ahu (E10), Moloka‘i (E2,E3), Lana‘i (E4), and Maui (E5–E9); and lastly (d) Clade F (reds in all figures) from O‘ahu(F1–2, 13–16), Maui (F3, 12), and Hawai‘i (F4–F11). No locality was shown to harbormore than one of these lineages. Two highly divergent lineages comprised of L. perkinsiindividuals were recovered.
MSDAs assigned individuals identified as L. hawaiensis to 5–57 putative species. Resultsacross analyses were largely congruent, with higher putative species counts produced bysome analyses over-splitting larger groups into species with two or less members. Nocontradictory assignments (e.g., individuals assigned to different species containing threeor more species) were observed. ABGD analyses of the COI dataset identified between 5and 13 species within L. hawaiensis, with 13 and 7 being reported for four partitions each,the former at lower P values (0.010–0.018) and the latter at higher P values (0.022–0.035).BIN analyses in BOLD produced similar results to those of ABGD at higher P values, withthe sole difference being the split of Clade A individuals into three rather than two putativespecies. Tree-based MSDAs recognized 8–57 putative species from specimens identified asL. hawaiensis, with 3–15 species for Clade A, 1–2 for Clade D, 1–22 for Clade E, and 1–22for Clade F. A detailed breakdown of all MSDA results is presented in Fig. 2.
Comparisons amongst MSDAs, phylogenetic reconstructions, and pairwise COI K2Pdistances (Table 2) based on the criteria previously led to the identification of eightcandidate species of coastal Ligia from the Hawaiian archipelago. Three candidate specieswere identified from Clade A: (a) one comprising all individuals collected in localities A2and A5, (b) one from those collected in A3–4, and (c) another containing all specimensfrom A1, A6–7. Only one candidate species was identified in Clade D (all individuals fromlocalities D1–2, D6) and another in Clade E (all individuals from E2–10). Lastly, threecandidate species were identified in Clade F : (a) one comprised of all individuals collectedinMaui (F3, 12), (b) one fromO‘ahu specimens (F1–2, F13–16), and (c) another composedof all Clade F individuals from Hawai‘i (F4–11). BPP analyses provided high support forthis partitioning scheme, as high posterior probabilities (>0.99) were observed for all eightcandidate coastal Ligia species regardless of priors used. No analysis clustered two or morecandidate species with posterior probabilities >0.01.
Of these, the candidate species comprised of Clade D individuals (green in all Figures)appears to correspond with Dana’s L. hawaiensis description, as BOLD identifications(100% match to a Clade D haplotype), BLAST searches (16S rDNA: 98.36% match, 100%coverage; COI: 100% match, 100% coverage), and NJ analyses (not shown) indicate thename-carrying syntype of L. hawaiensis to be a member of this candidate species. Theseresults thus indicate the need to narrowly redescribe L. hawaiensis and to describe sevennovel species of coastal Ligia from the Hawaiian archipelago.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 12/31
A5_16HI2L2
D1_16HI27L2
A4_16HI5L4
E7_16HI11L2
D1_HI11_12
F14_16HI22L1
E4_HI8_5
F10_16HI8L1
F4Tai13
F1_HI18_6
F12_16HI10L4
F12_16HI10L2
E3_HI16_3
E7_Tai18
F16_16HI25L4
C1_Tai5
D6_16HI28L1
A5_16HI2L4
F15_16HI23L5
A6_16HI12L2
A2_16HI1L3
F5_HI6_3
F7_Tai11
E6_HI9_4
E6_HI9_3
A2_16HI1L1
F13_16HI18L4
F11_16HI9L4
F10_16HI8L4
D1_HI11_7
E10_16HI24L4
F16_16HI25L5
E10_16HI24L5
D2_Tai10
F3Tai20
F5_HI6_11
F5_HI6_4
F5_HI6_5
F5_16HI6L4
F5_HI6_17
F7_16HI3L4
E4_HI8_3
E4_HI8_6
F7_16HI3L2
F5_HI6_6
F10_16HI8L2
E4_HI8_1
F14_16HI22L4
D1_16HI27L1
E7_16HI11L3
F5_HI6_2
E3_HI16_10
F14_16HI22L5
A3_16HI4L5
D6_16HI28L2
F15_16HI23L3
F9_16HI7L4
E6_HI10_3
F1_Tai15
F16_16HI25L1
F1_16HI20L1
F1_HI18_7
A7_16HI13L5
C3_Tai1
F13_16HI18L3
E8_16HI15L1
F11_16HI9L2F11_16HI9L3
F13_16HI18L5
F7_16HI3L1
F10_16HI8L5
F14_16HI22L2
E6_HI9_1
F12_16HI10L3
A4_16HI5L1
A6_16HI12L4
D1_16HI27L5
E3_HI16_6
E3_16HI_5
E4_HI8_2
F1_HI18_5
F12_16HI10L5
F1_HI18_3
D6_16HI28L4
F9_16HI7L2
D6_16HI28L5
F11_16HI9L5
F5_16HI6L1
F6_Tai12
A4_HI5_1
E7_16HI11L1
F10_16HI8L3
A7_16HI13L2
A3_16HI4L1
F16_16HI25L2
A5_16HI2L5
F5_HI6_13
E4_HI8_7
D1_16HI27L4
F1_16HI20L2
F7_16HI3L3
F1_HI18_4
E3_HI16_7
F5_HI6_7
F1_HI18_18
A3_16HI4L2
F5_16HI6L2
D1_HI11_1
A1_Tai19
A7_16HI13L1
F12_16HI10L6
F8_HI1_1
E7_16HI11L4
E5_Tai17
D1_HI11_2
D1_16HI27L3
E3_HI16_1
D6_16HI28L3
D1_HI11_3
F1_16HI20L5
F11_16HI9L1
E10_16HI24L2
D1_HI11_13
A4_16HI5L2
A3_HI3_1
E2_HI15_1
A7_16HI13L4
F15_16HI23L1
D1_HI11_6
A1_16HI14L1
F13_16HI18L2
A6_16HI12L3
E3_HI16_2
A2_16HI1L2
F9_16HI7L1
C2_Tai4
F5_HI6_14
E6_HI10_1
F2_Tai14
E3_HI16_11
D1_HI11_5
E9_16HI16L2
D1_HI11_4
F1_HI18_14
F5_HI6_9
A2_16HI1L5
A2_16HI1L4
F5_HI6_1
F5_16HI6L5
F7_16HI3L5
E9_16HI16L3
A4_16HI5L3
E7_16HI11L5
A5_16HI2L3
F1_HI18_2
A_HI2_1
F12_16HI10L10
E10_16HI24L1
E9_16HI16L1
A3_16HI4L4
F1_HI18_1
F1_16HI20L3
F5_HI6_10
A7_16HI13L3
E10_16HI24L3
F12_16HI10L1
F9_16HI7L3
F1_16HI20L4
A6_16HI12L1
F13_16HI18L1
E6_HI9_5
E4_HI8_4
E3_HI16_4
E8_16HI15L2
16HI4L3-FIX
E6_HI9_2
F16_16HI25L5
E9_16HI16L4
F1_HI18_8
E9_16HI16L5
F15_16HI23L4
B1_Tai8
A4_16HI5L5
A6_16HI12L5
F14_16HI22L3
F5_16HI6L3
F9_16HI7L5
F15_16HI23L2
F5_HI6_16
A5_16HI2L1
E6_HI10_2
L. hawaiensis
L. mauinuiensis
L. rolliensis
L. kamehameha
L. eleluensis
L. pele
L. perkinsi
L. dante
L. honu
A B C D E F
99-100
97-100
94-97
52-65
98-99
99-100
*
*
94
*
*
*
70-92
94-98
93-99
70-74
Figure 2 Results of molecular species delimitation analyses (MSDAs). Results are projected on the ma-jority rule consensus tree produced by analyzing the concatenated mitochondrial and nuclear dataset ofLigia samples from the Hawaiian Islands in (continued on next page. . . )
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7531/fig-2
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 13/31
Figure 2 (. . .continued)RAxML under the GTR+ 0 under a ‘‘by gene’’ partitioning scheme. Branches are transformed forclarity and are colored per clade as per Santamaria et al. (2013). Vertical bars represent assignments toputative species (identified by colors) under various MSDA methods. Values by nodes correspond withbootstrap support values, with * denoting 100% across all analyses. Bars A–B represent assignments byABGD and BOLD respectively, two distance-based methods on the COI dataset alone. All other bars areresults from tree-based approaches. Results for PTP and bPTP (Bayesian implementation of PTP) basedon phylogenetic searches carried out on RAxML under various partitioning schemes are presented in C(unpartitioned), D (by gene), and E (according to PartitionFinder). The first two vertical bars within eachof these correspond to PTP and bPTP results based on the most likely tree produced by RAxML, with thelast two corresponding to PTP and bPTP results on majority consensus bootstrap trees. The bars denotedby F correspond with GMYC assignments based on Coalescent and Yule speciation models respectively.Consensus species as well as the localities where they have been identified at are shown.
TAXONOMYMSDAs results, as well as those of phylogenetic reconstructions, COI K2P pairwisedistances, and the geographic distribution of lineages informed the re-description ofL. hawaiensis aswell as the description of seven novel coastal Ligia species from theHawaiianarchipelago. All type specimens, paratypes, and additional lots have been deposited at theFlorida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) in Gainesville, FL, USA. Descriptions belowfocus on molecular characters, as past morphological inspections have shown L. hawaiensislineages to lack diagnostic morphological differences (Taiti et al., 2003; Santamaria et al.,2013). Nonetheless, descriptions briefly touch on some overall body characteristics thatmay help distinguish Ligia species (e.g., eye size/distance, body ratio) and photographs ofall type specimens are provided (Fig. 3). All other traits (e.g., pereopods) are as describedand/or illustrated by Taiti et al. (2003), Taiti, Ferrara & Kwon (1992), and Jackson (1933).
Ligia hawaiensis species re-descriptionLSID: urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:257550.BOLD BINs : AAD0842.
Materials examined: the L. hawaiensis syntype deposited in the Harvard Museum ofComparative Zoology (MCZ:IZ:CRU-1543) as well as twenty individuals, both male andfemale, from 6 coastal localities across the island of Kaua‘i (D1, D2, and 6). A neotype(UFID 49339), paratype (UFID 49341) and a lot of five individuals (UFID 49342) from thetype locality as well as five individuals from Hoai Bay (UF 49343) have been deposited.Type locality: Kalihiwai Beach, Kaua‘i (D1; Lat.: 22◦13′05.30′′N; Long.: 159◦25′31.15′′W)Type: The syntype deposited by Dana appears to be a female in extremely poor condition(i.e., less than half the specimen remains) and with no locality information beyond‘‘Hawaiian Archipelago’’ available for it. Thus, a neotype has been deposited with theexpressed purpose of providing clarity to this particular taxon. The neotype depositedbelongs to the lineage as that of Dana’s original syntype and was collected from one of thetwo islands sampled by said author. It is 17.7 mm long and 6.8 mm wide (body length towidth ratio of ∼2.6) has been designated as a neotype. Eyes appear to be moderate in size(eye length is ∼0.5 greatest width of cephalon) and spacing (inter-eye distance ∼0.7 times
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 14/31
Table 2 Estimates of evolutionary divergence, as measured by Kimura 2-parameter distances, for Ligia species from the Hawaiian Archipelago.L.da
nte
L.eleluensis
L.rolliensis
L.ho
nu
L.ka
meham
eha
L.ha
waiensis
L.mau
inuiensis
L.pele
L.perkinsi
L. dante 0.0–4.6(2.4)
L. eleluensis 9.7–11.2(10.7)
0.0–0.9(0.5)
L. rolliensis 14.0–16.5(15.2)
13.4–15.4(14.3)
0.0–2.0(0.5)
L. honu 5.8–7.5(6.8)
10.9–11.3(11.0)
14.9–15.7(15.2)
N/A
L. kamehameha 13.8–16.4(14.8)
13.8–15.4(14.6)
4.0–6.4(5.0)
13.6–15.5(14.6)
0.0–5.4(2.5)
L. hawaiensis 12.8–15.4(14.4)
14.7–16.4(15.8)
12.5–14.4(13.6)
15.0–16.9(16.4)
11.6–14.6(13.0)
0.0–2.2(0.9)
L. mauinuiensis 13.6–15.9(14.9)
14.4–16.4(15.4)
10.9–12.6(11.6)
14.5–15.3(15.0)
8.7–13.1(10.6)
10.3–12.7(11.5)
0.0–2.4(0.7)
L. pele 15.0–16.6(15.8)
15.4–16.2(15.7)
6.1–7.1(6. 6)
15.9–16.2(15.0)
6.4–8.7(7.3)
12.6–14.8(13.9)
11.1–12.8(12.0)
0.0–0.2(0.9)
L. perkinsi 11.9–15.0(13. 6)
12.5–14.8(13.6)
12.9–14.7(13.9)
13.7–15.1(14.1)
11.1–15.0(13.2)
13.8–15.8(15.2)
12.5–16.6(13.8)
13.9–16.1(14.9)
1.0–15.3(8.4)
Santamaria
(2019),PeerJ,DO
I10.7717/peerj.753115/31
Figure 3 Figure 3: Paratypes of novel and re-described Hawaiian Ligia species. (A) L. honu (UFID49319); (B) L. eleluensis (UFID: 49329); (C) L. hawaiensis (UFID 49341); (D) L. pele (UFID 49326);(E) L. dante (UFID 49316); (F) L. kamehameha (UFID 49322); (G) L. rolliensis (UFID 49336); (H) L.mauinuiensis (UF 49331).
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7531/fig-3
eye length). Posterolateral processes of the pereionite 7 extend ∼0.6 length of the pleonite3. Antennae are long, extending almost the entire length of the body. The UFID for theneoype is 49339.
Diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 108-G; 165-T; 177-C; 279-G; 426-A; 459-G; 492-C; 522-G; 591-C.16S: 6(6)-T; 19(19)-A; 174(186)-C; 224(236)-C; 230(260)-C; 272(302)-A; 306(349)-C;391(434)-T; 414(457)-TCyt-b: 115-C; 125-T; 175-A; 250-C.12S: 32(35)-G; 297(297)-G; 318(321)-A; 376(379)-A; 475(492)-C.
Partially diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 87-G; 90-A; 126-T; 201-C; 300-G; 306-T; 327-G; 393-C; 405-C; 411-T; 417-G;586-C; 606-G; 706-C.16S: 110(110)-C; 270(300)-A; 273(303)-T; 360(403)-G; 439(482)-C.Cyt-b: 37-G; 109-C; 154-C; 155-C; 187-A; 196-C; 290-G; 295-C; 349-T; 352-C.12S: 33(36)-T; 83(86)-T; 301(304)-G; 319(322)-C.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 16/31
Distribution: this species appears to be geographically limited to the island of Kaua‘i,where it appears to be the only endemic coastal Ligia species. It is widely distributed acrossthe island.Etymology: The namewas originally proposed byDana to reflect theHawaiian distributionof this species.
Ligia dante nov. sp.LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:29042EF5-3FB4-4B34-AE4D-39E9B3462CD4.BOLD BINs : ADO0227; ACQ3367.
Materials examined: 11 individuals from two localities in the island of Hawai‘i (A2,A5). Both males and females were included. The holotype (UFID 49315), a paratype(UFID 49316), and a lot of five individuals (UFID 49317) from the type locality have beendeposited.Type locality: Miloli’i Beach Park, Hawai‘i, USA (A5; Lat.: 19◦10′58.10′′N; Long.:155◦54′25.10′′W).Type: small male individual (11.27 mm long) that is 4.40 mm wide at the widest pointof the pereionite 4 (body length to width ratio of ∼2.5). Eyes appear to be smaller (eyelength is∼0.4 greatest width of cephalon) and more widely spaced (inter-eye distance∼1.1times eye length) than in other Ligia in the area. Posterolateral processes of the pereionite7 extend ∼ 1
3 length of the pleonite 3. Antennae does not extend past pleonites being ∼0.9of body length. The holotype is deposited in the FLMNH under UFID 49315. GenBankAccession numbers for sequences obtained from the holotype are as follows: MK034481(COI); MK032557 (16S rDNA); MK032624 (12S rDNA); MK034569 (Cytb); MK034643(NaK).
Diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 126-G.16S: 224(236)-G; 291(321)-A.Cyt-b: N/A12S: 9(9)-G.
Partially diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 123-G; 237-C; 241-C; 259-C; 606-T.16S: 146(158)-A; 269(299)-C.Cyt-b: 55-G; 82-G.12S: 85(88)-C; 105(108)-G.
Distribution: Rocky intertidal habitats in the southwestern region of the island of Hawai‘i:Napo’opo’o Park (A2) and Miloli’i Beach Park (A5).
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 17/31
Etymology: This species is named after Dante Santamaria, a dear friend to the author whorecently passed away.
Ligia eleluensis nov. sp.LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:D9C872EB-8BCD-4B16-8FA7-08B1B805E529.BOLD BINs : ADO6183.
Materials examined: 12 individuals, both males and females, from three localities in theisland of Maui (A1, A6, and A7). The holotype (UFID 49328), a paratype (UFID 49329),and a lot of five individuals (UFID 49330) from the type locality have been deposited.Type locality: Koki Beach Park, Maui (A7; Lat.: 20◦43′41.62′′N; Long.: 155◦59′06.71′′W).Type: male individual that is 14.98 mm long and 5.41 mm wide at pereionite 4 (bodylength to width ratio of ∼2.8). Eyes appear to be moderate in size (eye length is ∼0.5greatest width of cephalon) but somewhat more distant than for most other Ligia in thearea (inter-eye distance ∼0.8 times eye length). Posterolateral processes of the pereionite7 extend about 1
3 length of the pleonite 3. Antennae does not extend past pleonites and is∼0.7 of body length. The holotype has been deposited under UFID 49328, with sequencesfor the holotype found under GenBank Accession numbers: MK034485 (COI); MK032499(16S rDNA); MK032598 (12S rDNA); MK034608 (NaK); MK034656 (H3A).
Diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 81-G; 225-T; 324-A; 336-C; 360-G; 456-C; 513-C; 549-C; 696-A.16S: 13(13)-G; 45(45)-G; 168(180)-T; 189(201)-C; 289(319)-C.Cyt-b: 4-C; 22-C; 289-T.12S: 1(1)-C; 19(19)-C; 30(33)-A; 166(169)-A.
Partially diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 88-C; 129-A; 333-T; 411-G; 504-C; 558-G; 573-T; 663-C.16S: 146(158)-T; 280(310)-G; 291(321)-C.Cyt-b: 52-G; 184-G; 187-G; 257-A; 287-C; 304-A; 307-G; 355-C.12S: 82(85)-G; 85(88)-T; 86(89)-C; 87(90)-T; 382(399)-T.
Distribution: this species has only been identified in three localities in the eastern coastlineof Maui: Wai‘Opae (A1), Waianapanapa State Park (A6), and Koki Beach Park (A7).Etymology: Ligia isopods are often referred to as ‘‘wharf roaches’’ in common parlance.The proposed species name honors this by incorporating the Hawaiian name for acockroach (‘elelu) into the species epithet.
Ligia honu nov. sp.LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:2C6958E3-C573-4F5A-AB97-7AFC19384603.BOLD BINs : ACQ3366.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 18/31
Materials examined: 11 Ligia individuals, both male and female, collected in two localitiesin the southern coast of the island of Hawai‘i were examined (A3, A4). The holotype (UFID49318), a paratype (UFID 49319), and five individuals (UFID 49320) from the type localityhave been deposited.Type locality: Punalu’u Black Sand Beach Park, Hawai‘i, U.S.A. (A3; Lat.: 19◦ 08′00.60′′N;Long.: 155◦30′18.30′′W).Type: a 4.97 mm long male individual that is 3.76 mm wide at its widest point (pereionite4; body length:width ratio of ∼2.6). Eyes appear to be moderate in size (eye length is ∼0.5greatest width of cephalon) and separation (inter-eye distance is ∼0.7 eye length) whencompared to other Ligia from the area. Posterolateral processes of the pereionite 7 extendabout 1
4 length of the pleonite 3. Antennae does not extend past pleonites and is ∼0.7 ofbody length. The UFID for the holotype is 49318, while GenBank Accession numbers forsequences obtained from this individual are as follows: MK034514 (COI); MK032566 (16SrDNA); MK032627 (12S rDNA); MK034582 (Cytb); MK034677 (H3A).
Diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 123-A; 126-A; 189-C; 222-C; 234-C; 429-C; 433-C; 597-C; 675-T.16S: N/ACyt-b: N/A12S: 43(46)-C; 140(143)-G.
Partially diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 120-T; 321-T; 402-G; 648-C; 678-G.16S: 105(105)-A.Cyt-b: 112-G; 238-G; 281-A; 304-G; 341-T12S: 82(85)-T; 312(315)-C.
Distribution: This species has only been identified in two localities in the southerncoastline of Hawai‘i: Punalu’u Black Sand Beach Park (A3) and Isaac Hale Beach Park(A4).Etymology: The epitet ‘‘honu’’ is derived from the Hawaiian word for turtle and is inreference to the green sea turtles often found resting in the shores of the type locality.
Ligia kamehameha nov. sp.LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:2EBFFFA4-3BA0-497C-BF97-A09B472893EF.BOLD BINs : ADN0096; ADN6487; ACQ8239; ACQ8240; ACQ8241.
Materials examined: Forty-three individuals, both males and females, from eight localitiesin the island of Hawai‘i were examined (F4–11). A holotype (UFID 49321), a paratype(UFID 49322), and a lot of five individuals (UFID 49323) from the type locality as well asfive individuals from Onekahakaha Beach Park (UFID 49324) have been deposited.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 19/31
Type locality: Spencer Beach Park, Hawai‘i (F11; Lat.: 20◦01′22.41′′N; Long.:155◦49′21.50′′W)Type: a female individual that is ∼2.5 longer than wide at pereionite 4. Eyes are relativelysmall (∼0.4 times greatest width of cephalon) yet moderately spaced (inter-eye distance∼0.7 eye length). Posterolateral processes of the pereionite 7 extend to the middle ofpleonite 3. Antennae does not extend past pleonites and is∼0.7 times the body length. Theholotype has been deposited under UFID 49321 with sequences available under GenBankAccession numbers: MK034535 (COI); MK032585 (16S rDNA); MK032637 (12S rDNA);MK034592 (Cytb); MK034649 (NaK); MK034684 (H3A).
Diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 207-A; 243-G.16S: N/A.Cyt-b: N/A.12S: 224(227)-G; 236(239)-C.
Partially diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 633-G.16S: N/A.Cyt-b: N/A.12S: 352(355)-C.
Distribution: The distributional range of this species appears to be limited to the islandof Hawai‘i where it is widespread, particularly across its north and west coasts.Etymology: The species epithet honors Kamehameha I, founder and first ruler of theKingdom of Hawaii, who was born in the Kohala region of the island of Hawai‘i where thetype location for this species is located.
Ligia mauinuiensis nov. sp.LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:B8D9EC07-5127-45A4-94D4-8B14C392A2C0.BOLD BINs : AAD0844.
Materials examined: 40 individuals from ten localities across the islands of Maui (E5–9),Moloka‘i (E2, E4), Lana‘i (E3), and O‘ahu (E10). A holotype (UFID 49344) from the typelocality as well as a paratype (UFID 49331) and a lot of five individuals (UFID 49332) fromHanakao’o Park have been deposited.Type locality: DT Fleming Beach Park, Maui (E8; Lat.: 21◦00′20.82′′N; Long.:156◦38′58.43′′W)Type: male individual that is ∼2.8 times longer than wide with average sized and spacedeyes (eye length is ∼0.5 greatest width of cephalon, inter-eye distance ∼0.7 eye length).Posterolateral processes of the pereionite 7 extend about 1
3 the length of the pleonite
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 20/31
3. Antennae does not extend past pleonites and is ∼0.70 of body length. Body is finelygranular. The holotype has been deposited under UFID 49344, with sequences obtainedfrom this individual available under GenBank Accession numbers: MK034550 (COI);MK032503 (16S rDNA); MK032602 (12S rDNA); MK034599 (Cytb); MK034611 (NaK);MK034659 (H3A).
Diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 99-G; 303-G; 450-C; 535-T; 564-T; 567-C; 609-G.16S: 93(93)-T; 143(143)-A; 258(288)-C; 335(378)-T.Cyt-b: 283-G; 340-A; 346-G.12S: 139(142)-G; 246(249)-A; 262(265)-G; 306(309)-G; 349(352)-A.
Partially diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 120-G; 318-T; 429-T; 525-A; 631-T.16S: 235(265)-G; 294(324)-C; 440(483)-T.Cyt-b: 181-T; 217-T; 223-T; 275-A; 292-C; 301-C; 304-C.12S: 148(151)-A; 199(202)-T.
Distribution: This species appears to be widespread across the islands of the Maui-Nuigroup as well as the eastern coastlines of O‘ahu.Etymology: The species name proposed reflects the distribution of this species primarilyacross the islands of the Maui-Nui group.
Ligia pele nov. sp.LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:9E02F410-21B0-4D86-92D3-1CC4E3FBAF05.BOLD BINs : ADN2023.
Materials examined: eight individuals from two localities in north Maui were examined(A6, A7). The holotype (UFID 49325), a paratype (UFID 49326) and a lot of five individuals(UFID 49327) from the type locality have been deposited.Type locality: Baby Beach, Spreckelsville, Maui (F12; Lat.: 20◦54′45.09′′N; Long.:156◦24′16.01′′W).Type: male specimen that is 14.95 mm long and 5.69 mm wide at its widest point(pereionite 4; body length to width ratio of ∼2.6). Eyes appear smaller than other Ligiafrom the area (eye length is ∼0.4 greatest width of cephalon) and wide set (inter-eyedistance is equal to eye length). Posterolateral processes of the pereionite 7 extend morethan 3
4 length of the pleonite 3. Antennae does not extend past pleonites and is ∼0.8body length. The holotype is deposited under UFID 49325. Sequences produced from thisindividual are available under GenBank Accession numbers: MK034562 (COI); MK032482(16S rDNA).
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 21/31
Diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 228-C; 234-A; 369-T; 462-G; 474-C; 564-G.16S: 127(127)-G; 340(383)-T; 355(398)-G.Cyt-b: N/A12S: 13(13)-G; 207(210)-G.
Partially diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 43-T; 81-A; 141-A; 318-C; 519-C; 681-G.16S: 11(11)-G; 102(102)-G;Cyt-b: N/A12S: 223(226)-G; 305(308)-G; 474(491)-C.
Distribution: This species has been recorded in two localities in northern Maui:Honomanu Bay (F3) and Baby Beach in Spreckelsville (F12).Etymology: The name of this species honors the Hawaiian deity Pele.
Ligia rolliensis nov. spLSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:760DB916-8442-42B8-A6E5-09E32773001ABOLD BINs : AAD0843.
Materials examined: 37 individuals, both males and females, from six localities acrossO‘ahu were examined (F1, F2, F13–16). A holotype (UFID 49334), paratype (UFID 49336)and a lot of five individuals (UFID 49337) from the type locality as well as an additionalfive individuals from Kaena Point (North; UFID 49338) have been deposited.Type locality: Pupukea, O‘ahu (F1; Lat.: 21◦38′59.70′′N; Long.: 158◦03′45.48′′W).Type: This specimen is a male that is 21.50 mm long and 8.18 mm wide at its widest point(pereionite 4) resulting in a body length to body width ratio of ∼2.6. Eyes appear to beof moderate size when compared to other Ligia from the area (eye length is ∼0.4 greatestwidth of cephalon) with a distance between the eyes that also appears comparable to mostother Ligia in the region (inter-eye distance is ∼0.7 of eye length). Posterolateral processesof the pereionite 7 extend about halfway of the length of the pleonite 3. Antennae doesnot extend past pleonites and is ∼0.7 body length. The neotype is deposited under UFID49334. GenBank Accession numbers for the neotype specimen are as follows: MK034494(COI); MK032521 (16S rDNA); MK032611 (12S rDNA); MK034622 (NaK); MK034665(H3A).
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 22/31
Molecular diagnostic characters:
COI: 520-T.16S: N/A.Cyt-b: 302-A.12S: N/A.
Partially diagnostic molecular characters:
COI: 579-T; 672-C.16S: N/A.Cyt-b: 40-C; 325-C.12S: 225(228)-G; 351(354)-G.
Distribution: Widespread across the island of O‘ahu, excluding the eastern tip of theisland.Etymology: This species reflects both a term commonly used for terrestrial isopods in theU.S.A (i.e., rollie pollies) and that of a beloved pet who recently passed away: Rollie.
DISCUSSIONPhylogeographic work on Ligia from the Hawaiian archipelago has uncovered severalgenetically divergent yet morphologically cryptic lineages in L. hawaiensis, suggesting thiscoastal species endemic to the region represents a cryptic species complex (Taiti et al., 2003;Santamaria et al., 2013). Results of MSDAs implemented on a molecular dataset comprisedof mitochondrial and nuclear markers lend further support to this idea, as 5–57 putativespecies were identified from L. hawaiensis individuals, further underscoring the need for ataxonomic revision of the Ligia fromHawaii. Ideally, such taxonomic revisions would entailan integrative approach incorporating several lines of evidence (e.g., morphology, mDNA,nDNA; Schlick-Steiner et al., 2010); however,morphological variation appears to be severelylimited across genetically divergent L. hawaiensis lineages (Taiti et al., 2003; Santamariaet al., 2013). Similarly, variation in nuclear markers appears to be limited perhaps asa result of the young age of the Ligia lineages in the region (Santamaria et al., 2013).Thus, species descriptions in this study relied primarily on mitochondrial data, a suitableapproach for delineating cryptic species and/or organisms with a young evolutionaryhistory (Schlick-Steiner et al., 2010; Jörger & Schrödl, 2013; Grabowski, Wysocka & Mamos,2017).
In the case of coastal Hawaiian Ligia, results from MSDAs, phylogenetic patterns,distributional data, and molecular diagnostic characters analyses led to the re-descriptionof L. hawaiensis and the description of seven novel species in the area. Ligia hawaiensisis herein re-described to represent the sole coastal Ligia lineage found in the island ofKaua‘i, as both COI and 16S rDNA sequences obtained from the syntype of L. hawaiensiswas identified as a member of Clade D (greens in all figures). This finding cements the
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 23/31
status of L. kauiensis as a junior synonym of L. hawaiensis, as Clade D also includes Ligiaindividuals from the type locality of L. kauaiensis (Kalihiwai Bay, Kaua‘i). It also underlinesthe potential of non-destructive approaches in producing molecular data from historicalspecimens, as the DNA obtained for the >150 year old syntype was extracted from itsfixative using a variant of the protocol proposed by Shokralla, Singer & Hajibabaei (2010).
The seven novel species describedmainly appear to be allopatric species that are primarilyfound in the younger Hawaiian islands. Three novel species are found solely on the islandof Hawai‘i: L. dante from the South Kona district in the south-west, L. honu in the Ka‘u andPuna districts along the south and southeastern coast, and L. kamehameha in the coastlinesof the Kohala, Hamakua, and Hilo districts. Another two newly described species exhibitgeographic ranges limited to the island of Maui: L. pele from the north of the island, andL. eleluensis from its eastern coastline. Lastly, L. mauinuiensis is described from localitiesin the islands of Maui, Lana‘i, Moloka‘i, and the eastern coastline of O‘ahu, while L. rollieis found solely in O‘ahu. These general patterns suggest that most of the Ligia species inthe Hawaiian archipelago may be relatively young species (most species found in islands<2 myo; (Carson & Clague, 1995)) largely confined to a single island where they exhibitdisjunct geographical distributions, and may thus be informative on the processes drivingdiversification for coastal organisms across local scales in Hawai‘i.
Although additional work remains needed to fully delineate the distributional limitsfor these new species, particularly in islands where more than one species is found (e.g.,O‘ahu, Hawai‘i), distributional patterns observed to date suggest local-scale allopatricevents (e.g., volcanic or hydrogeographic processes) may have driven the diversificationof Ligia populations at local scales. For instance, Ligia species in the island of Hawai‘iexhibit distributional breaks that partially match volcanic rift zones: L. dante appears to bedistributed solely within the western coast line of the Mauna Loa rift zone, L. honu withinthe Kilauea rift zone, and L. kamehameha primarily found in the Mauna Kea and Kohalarift zones (see Fiske, Jackson & Sutton, 1972). Similar phylogeographic patterns have beenobserved for Halocaridina rubra (Craft et al., 2008) and vermetid snails (Faucci, 2007) inthe island of Hawai‘i, suggesting that allopatric processes associated with volcanic rift zonesmay have played a role in the diversification of other poorly dispersing coastal organisms inthe Hawaiian island, even across small distances. Additional sampling and the applicationof genomic approaches may not only further elucidate the role of these allopatric eventsbut also whether any introgression amongst species is occurring.
Highly divergent genetic lineages representing possible cryptic species have been reportedfrom several Ligia species (Jung et al., 2008; Hurtado, Mateos & Santamaria, 2010; Eberlet al., 2013; Raupach et al., 2014; Santamaria, Mateos & Hurtado, 2014; Santamaria et al.,2017;Greenan, Griffiths & Santamaria, 2018;Hurtado et al., 2018); however, this representsthe first attempt at formally describing such lineages as species. Findings of this studyunderscore the value molecular taxonomic approaches hold for completing taxonomicrevisions in this isopod genus. Thus, their application in taxonomic evaluations of otherLigia species known to harbor highly divergent lineages is recommended. Doing so mayhelp clarify the taxonomy of these isopods while updating it to match the levels of genetic
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 24/31
diversity that have been reported so far in these species and may aid in the conservation ofcoastal biodiversity across the globe.
CONCLUSIONPhylogenetic reconstructions combined with molecular species delimitation analyses usingboth mitochondrial and nuclear gene fragments led to the re-description of L. hawaiensisand the description of seven novel coastal species in the area. These species are largelyallopatric, exhibiting non-overlapping geographic ranges in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Assuch, they appear to represent another case of local diversification in a Hawaiian marineorganism. Further studies of these organisms may thus be informative on the processesresponsible for diversification in Hawaiian coastlines. Lastly, the successful application ofMSDAs in this study suggest these approaches may be suitable to formally describe crypticspecies in this genus in other regions of the world where high levels of genetic divergencehave been reported from.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank members of the Santamaria Lab at USF-SM who helped collectLigia specimens and complete molecular laboratory work. Similarly, I would like to thankNyssa Tarver who helped complete laboratory work at Sam Houston State University.Christopher Randle and Sybil Bucheli kindly allowed the use of their laboratory facilitiesat this institution. Lastly, I would like to thank Adam Baldinger and the Havard Museumof Comparative Zoology for their efforts in locating and making available the L. hawaiensissyntype from Dana’s original collection.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS
FundingThis work was supported by internal funding sources at Sam Houston State Universityand the University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee. The funders had no role in studydesign, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Grant DisclosuresThe following grant information was disclosed by the author:Sam Houston State University.University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee.
Competing InterestsThe author declares there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions• Carlos A. Santamaria conceived and designed the experiments, performed theexperiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, preparedfigures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft,completed sampling.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 25/31
DNA DepositionThe following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:
All new sequences produced in this study are available in GenBank: MK032482–MK032590, MK032592–MK032638, and MK034474–MK034685.
Data AvailabilityThe following information was supplied regarding data availability:
An annotated version of the alignment used in analyses is available as a SupplementalFile.
New Species RegistrationThe following information was supplied regarding the registration of a newly describedspecies:
Publication LISD:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7FF280B9-13B0-43F9-A9D6-1C2CDF29C0CC
Ligia dante LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:29042EF5-3FB4-4B34-AE4D-39E9B3462CD4Ligia honu LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:2C6958E3-C573-4F5A-AB97-7AFC19384603Ligia eleluensis LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:D9C872EB-8BCD-4B16-8FA7-
08B1B805E529Ligia mauinuiensis LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:B8D9EC07-5127-45A4-94D4-
8B14C392A2C0Ligia kamehameha LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:2EBFFFA4-3BA0-497C-BF97-
A09B472893EFLigia pele LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:9E02F410-21B0-4D86-92D3-1CC4E3FBAF05Ligia hawaiensis LSID: urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:257550Ligia rolliensis nov. sp LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:760DB916-8442-42B8-A6E5-
09E32773001A.
Supplemental InformationSupplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7531#supplemental-information.
REFERENCESArcangeli A. 1954. Ligyda kauaiensis Edmonson 1931 e Ligia callani Collinge 1946 sono
sinonimi di specie già note (Crostacei Isopodi terrestri). Accademia delle scienze diTorino. Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali 88:147–152.
Barnes TC. 1932. Salt requirements and space orientation of the littoral isopod Ligia inBermuda. Biological Bulletin 63:496–504 DOI 10.2307/1537351.
Barnes TC. 1934. Further observations on the salt requirements of Ligia in Bermuda.Biological Bulletin 66:124–132 DOI 10.2307/1537326.
Barnes TC. 1935. Salt requirements and orientation of Ligia in Bermuda. III. BiologicalBulletin 69:259–268 DOI 10.2307/1537424.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 26/31
Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sodhi NS, Ng PKL, Meier R,Winker K, Ingram KK, Das I.2007. Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends in Ecology& Evolution 22:148–155 DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.004.
Bird CE, Holland BS, Bowen BW, Toonen RJ. 2011. Diversification of sympatricbroadcast-spawning limpets (Cellana spp.) within the Hawaiian archipelago.Molecular Ecology 20:2128–2141 DOI 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05081.x.
Bouckaert R, Heled J, Kühnert D, Vaughan T,Wu C-H, Xie D, SuchardMA, RambautA, Drummond AJ. 2014. BEAST 2: a Software Platform for Bayesian EvolutionaryAnalysis. PLOS Computational Biology 10:e1003537DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003537.
Carson HL, Clague DA. 1995. Geology and biogeography of the Hawaiian Islands.In: Wagner WL, Funk VA, eds. Hawaiian biogeography: evolution on a hot spotarchipelago. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press, 14–29.
Colgan DJ, McLauchlan A,Wilson GDF, Livingston SP, Edgecombe GD,MacaranasJ, Cassis G, GrayMR. 1998.Histone H3 and U2 snRNA DNA sequences andarthropod molecular evolution. Australian Journal of Zoology 46:419–437DOI 10.1071/ZO98048.
Craft JD, Russ AD, YamamotMN, Iwai TY, Hau S, Kahiapo J, Chong CT, Ziegler-Chong-Sharon C, Muir C, Fujita Y, Polhemus DA, Kinzie RA, Santos SR. 2008.Islands under islands: the phylogeography and evolution of Halocaridina rubraHolthuis, 1963 (Crustacean: Decapoda: Atyidae) in the Hawaiian archipelago.Limnology and Oceanography 53:675–689 DOI 10.4319/lo.2008.53.2.0675.
Dana JD. 1853. Crustacea. Part II. In: United States exploring expedition. During theyears 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes. U. S. N.C. Sherman. Philadelphia 14:689–1618.
Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. 2012. jModelTest 2: more models, newheuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9:772–772.
Delić T, Trontelj P, RendošM, Fišer C. 2017. The importance of naming cryptic speciesand the conservation of endemic subterranean amphipods. Scientific Reports 7:3391.
Eberl R, Mateos M, Grosberg RK, Santamaria CA, Hurtado LA. 2013. Phylogeog-raphy of the supralittoral isopod Ligia occidentalis around the point conceptionmarine biogeographical boundary. Journal of Biogeography 40(12):2361–2372DOI 10.1111/jbi.12168.
Edmondson CH. 1931. New crustaceans from Kauai, Oahu, and Maui. Occasional Papersof Bernice P. Bishop Museum 9:3–18.
Faucci A. 2007. The influence of larval dispersal potential on speciation, phylogeography,and genetic population structure in two Pacific marine snail groups. Ann Arbor:University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Fiske RS, Jackson ED, Sutton J. 1972. Orientation and growth of Hawaiian volcanicrifts: the effect of regional structure and gravitational stresses. Proceedings of theRoyal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 329:299–326DOI 10.1098/rspa.1972.0115.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 27/31
Folmer O, BlackM, HoehW, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R. 1994. DNA primers for amplifi-cation of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoaninvertebrates.Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology 3:294–299.
Fujisawa T, Barraclough TG. 2013. Delimiting species using single-locus data and thegeneralized mixed yule coalescent approach: a revised method and evaluation onsimulated data sets. Systematic Biology 62:707–724 DOI 10.1093/sysbio/syt033.
Gernhard T. 2008. The conditioned reconstructed process. Journal of Theoretical Biology253:769–778 DOI 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.005.
Grabowski M,Wysocka A, Mamos T. 2017.Molecular species delimitation methodsprovide new insight into taxonomy of the endemic gammarid species flock from theancient Lake Ohrid. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 181:272–285.
Greenan TM, Griffiths CL, Santamaria CA. 2018.Molecular approaches uncovercryptic diversity in intertidal Ligia isopods (Crustacea, Isopoda, Ligiidae) across thesouthern Africa coastline. PeerJ 6:e4658 DOI 10.7717/peerj.4658.
Hurtado LA, Mateos M, Santamaria CA. 2010. Phylogeography of supralittoral rockyintertidal Ligia isopods in the Pacific region from Central California to CentralMexico. PLOS ONE 5:e11633 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0011633.
Hurtado LA, Mateos M,Wang C, Santamaria CA, Jung J, Khalaji-Pirbalouty V, KimW. 2018. Out of Asia: mitochondrial evolutionary history of the globally introducedsupralittoral isopod Ligia exotica. PeerJ 6:e4337 DOI 10.7717/peerj.4337.
Jung J, Eo HS, Rho RS, KimW. 2008. Two genetic lineages of sea slaters, Ligia (Crus-tacea: Isopoda) in South Korea: a population genetic approach.Molecules and Cells25:523–530.
Jackson HG. 1922. A revision of the isopod genus Ligia (Fabricius). Proceedings of theZoological Society of London 92:683–703 DOI 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1922.tb02164.x.
Jackson HG. 1933.Marquesan terrestrial Isopoda. Bulletin of the Bernice P. BishopMuseum 114:145–162.
Jörger KM, Schrödl MJFIZ. 2013.How to describe a cryptic species? Practical Challengesof Molecular Taxonomy 10:Article 59 DOI 10.1186/1742-9994-10-59.
Katoh K, Rozewicki J, Yamada KD. 2017.MAFFT online service: multiple sequencealignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Briefings in Bioinformaticsbbx108 DOI 10.1093/bib/bbx108.
Katoh K, Standley DM. 2013.MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version7: improvements in performance and usability.Molecular Biology and Evolution30:772–780 DOI 10.1093/molbev/mst010.
Kay AE, Palumbi SR. 1987. Endemism and evolution in Hawaiian marine invertebrates.Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2:183–186 DOI 10.1016/0169-5347(87)90017-6.
Kingman JFC. 1982. The coalescent. Stochastic Processes and their Applications13:235–248 DOI 10.1016/0304-4149(82)90011-4.
Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. 2016.MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysisversion 7.0 for bigger datasets.Molecular Biology and Evolution 33:1870–1874DOI 10.1093/molbev/msw054.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 28/31
Lanfear R, Calcott B, Ho SYW, Guindon S. 2012. PartitionFinder: combined selection ofpartitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses.MolecularBiology and Evolution 29:1695–1701 DOI 10.1093/molbev/mss020.
Merritt TJS, Shi L, Chase MC, RexMA, Etter RJ, Quattro JM. 1998. Universal cy-tochrome b primers facilitate intraspecific studies in molluscan taxa.MolecularMarine Biology and Biotechnology 7:7–11.
Palumbi S. 1996. Nucleic acids II: polymerase chain reaction. In: Hillis D, Moritz C,Mable B, eds.Molecular systematics. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer AssociatesInc., 205–247.
Podsiadlowski L, Bartolomaeus T. 2005. Organization of the mitochondrial genome ofmantis shrimp Pseudosquilla ciliata (Crustacea: Stomatopoda).Marine Biotechnology7:618–624 DOI 10.1007/s10126-005-0017-8.
Puillandre N, Lambert A, Brouillet S, Achaz G. 2012. ABGD, Automatic BarcodeGap Discovery for primary species delimitation.Molecular Ecology 21:1864–1877DOI 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05239.x.
Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN. 2007. bold: the barcode of life data system(http://www.barcodinglife.org).Molecular Ecology Notes 7:355–364DOI 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x.
Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN. 2013. A DNA-Based Registry for All Animal Species: theBarcode Index Number (BIN) System. PLOS ONE 8:e66213DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0066213.
RaupachMJ, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Knebelsberger T, Laakmann S, Pfaender J, LeeseF. 2014. Phylogeographical analysis of Ligia oceanica (Crustacea: Isopoda) revealstwo deeply divergent mitochondrial lineages. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society112:16–30 DOI 10.1111/bij.12254.
Santamaria CA, Bluemel JK, Bunbury N, CurranM. 2017. Cryptic biodiversityand phylogeographic patterns of Seychellois Ligia isopods. PeerJ 5:e3894DOI 10.7717/peerj.3894.
Santamaria CA, Mateos M, DeWitt TJ, Hurtado LA. 2016. Constrained bodyshape among highly genetically divergent allopatric lineages of the supralit-toral isopod Ligia occidentalis (Oniscidea). Ecology and Evolution 6:1537–1554DOI 10.1002/ece3.1984.
Santamaria CA, Mateos M, Hurtado LA. 2014. Diversification at the narrow sea-landinterface in the Caribbean: phylogeography of endemic supralittoral Ligia isopods.Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2:Article 42 DOI 10.3389/fevo.2014.00042.
Santamaria CA, Mateos M, Taiti S, DeWitt TJ, Hurtado LA. 2013. A complexevolutionary history in a remote archipelago: phylogeography and mor-phometrics of the Hawaiian endemic Ligia Isopods. PLOS ONE 8:e85199DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0085199.
Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM, Seifert B, Stauffer C, Christian E, Crozier RH. 2010.Integrative taxonomy: a multisource approach to exploring biodiversity. AnnualReview of Entomology 55:421–438 DOI 10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085432.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 29/31
Schmalfuss H. 2003.World catalog of terrestrial isopods (Isopoda: Oniscidea).Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde Series A 654:1–341.
Schnurr S, Osborn KJ, MalyutinaM, Jennings R, Brix S, Driskell A, Svavarsson J,Martinez Arbizu P. 2018.Hidden diversity in two species complexes of munnopsidisopods (Crustacea) at the transition between the northernmost North Atlantic andthe Nordic Seas.Marine Biodiversity 48:813–843 DOI 10.1007/s12526-018-0877-6.
Sela I, Ashkenazy H, Katoh K, Pupko T. 2015. GUIDANCE2: accurate detection ofunreliable alignment regions accounting for the uncertainty of multiple parameters.Nucleic Acids Research 43:W7–W14 DOI 10.1093/nar/gkv318.
Shokralla S, Singer GAC, Hajibabaei M. 2010. Direct PCR amplification and sequencingof specimens’ DNA from preservative ethanol. BioTechniques 48:305–306.
Stamatakis A. 2014. RAxML Version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysisof large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30(9):1312–1313.
Sukumaran J, Holder MT. 2010. DendroPy: a Python library for phylogenetic comput-ing. Bioinformatics 26:1569–1571 DOI 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq228.
Taiti S, ArnedoMA, Lew SE, Roderick GK. 2003. Evolution of terrestriality in Hawaiianspecies of the genus Ligia (Isopoda, Oniscidea). Crustaceana Monographs 2:85–102.
Taiti S, Ferrara F. 1991. Terrestrial isopods (Crustacea) from the Hawaiian Islands.Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 31:202–227.
Taiti S, Ferrara F, Kwon DH. 1992. Terrestrial Isopoda (Crustacea) from the TogianIslands, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Invertebrate Systematics 6:787–842DOI 10.1071/IT9920787.
Taiti S, Howarth FG. 1996. Terrestrial isopods from the Hawaiian Islands (Isopoda:Oniscidea). Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 45:59–71.
Tsai M-L, Dai CF, Chen H-C. 1998. Desiccation resistance of two semiterrestrial isopods,Ligia exotica and Ligia taiwanensis (Crustacea) in Taiwan. Comparative Biochem-istry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 119:361–367DOI 10.1016/S1095-6433(97)00438-8.
Tsang LM,Ma KY, Ahyong ST, Chan TY, Chu KH. 2008. Phylogeny of Decapoda usingtwo nuclear protein-coding genes: origin and evolution of the Reptantia.MolecularPhylogenetics and Evolution 48:359–368 DOI 10.1016/j.ympev.2008.04.009.
Vaidya G, Lohman DJ, Meier R. 2011. SequenceMatrix: concatenation software forthe fast assembly of multi-gene datasets with character set and codon information.Cladistics 27:171–180 DOI 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00329.x.
WhitingMF. 2002.Mecoptera is paraphyletic: multiple genes and phylogeny ofMecoptera and Siphonaptera. Zoologica Scripta 31:93–104DOI 10.1046/j.0300-3256.2001.00095.x.
Yang Z. 2015. The BPP program for species tree estimation and species delimitation.Current Zoology 61:854–865 DOI 10.1093/czoolo/61.5.854.
Yule GU. 1925. A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr.JC Willis, FRS. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B213:21–87 DOI 10.1098/rstb.1925.0002.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 30/31
Zhang J, Kapli P, Pavlidis P, Stamatakis A. 2013. A general species delimitation methodwith applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics 29:2869–2876DOI 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt499.
Zimmermann BL, Campos-Filho IS, Cardoso GM, Santos S, Aguiar JO, Araujo PB.2018. Two new species of Atlantoscia Ferrara & Taiti, 1981 (Isopoda: Oniscidea:Philosciidae) from southern Brazil described in the light of integrative taxonomy.Zootaxa 4482:551–565 DOI 10.11646/zootaxa.4482.3.7.
Santamaria (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.7531 31/31